So we can now obliterate anything if it's a "national security interest"?

[MannyGoldstein]

Fabulous.

Seems to me that we need to rethink this whole use of force outside of our borders thing. In my opinion, we should only use it to deal with a clear and present danger, to defend an allie that has been attacked, or something that the broader international community (e.g., the UN) has declared to be a war crime or crime against humanity.

The recent fashion of a single American deciding whether to kill people is a really, really bad idea. Within our country we have a judicial system for that, and we have a Congress to determine when we kill internationally. Our Founders did not intend for a single person to grab such power.

[el_bryanto]

1. What single American is that? I got the impression that Obama had decided to seek congressional

approval?

Or is it someone else?

Bryant

[MannyGoldstein]

2. The Congressional vote is advisory only

Obama claims the right to go against it if he wants.

[Precisely]

4. you really think this is his choice?

[MannyGoldstein]

5. *He* thinks it's his choice

And Obama commands the military, so what he thinks is what counts.

[Precisely]

6. That's very doubtful

[MannyGoldstein]

9. You don't believe him?

Or you don't believe he said it?

[Precisely]

14. I don't believe he thinks he's an imperial president.

[MannyGoldstein]

17. How do you define "imperial president"? nt

[Precisely]

21. One who thinks it's *his* choice

[rug]

3. In his speech he claimed he has the constitutional power now to strike but he is seeking approval.

[Dragonfli]

8. Did he cite where in the constitution he is given the power to commit acts of war

On the indulgence of his whim without war being declared by congress?

I did not think there was such a passage, but it has been over thirty years since I studied the constitution in depth under the guidance of a knowledgeable professor and I may have simply forgotten.

I am genuinely curious about this bit I missed and appear to remain completely unaware of.

[Dustlawyer]

27. If the MIC says it is Constitutional, it's Constitutional!

[michigandem58]

7. So chemical weapons used against civilians in non-allied countries is okay

Got it.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Is that what I wrote?

Funny, I don't see that.

What makes you think that I believe that?

[truth2power]

22. It's not about chemical weapons...

or women going to school, or hearts and minds, or bringing democracy, or some moral imperative blah blah.

Money, power, oil, resources.

[sabrina 1]

50. So White Phosporous used against civilians by the Bush war criminals in the illegal war in Iraq

killing untold numbers of civilians, is a better way to kill people and something we should move forward from while protecting the criminals who are responsible?

Until the War Crimes in Iraq are prosecuted, the US has zero moral authority to even speak about the subject, as the World is pointing out right now.

This issue should be handled by those who do not have unresolved issues with their own War Crimes.

[michigandem58]

51. Oh I see, your principles are so pure

You're willing to watch innocents die because we don't have a high enough moral ground to suit you.

[sabrina 1]

54. I expect higher standards of debate on DU rather than this ancient example of staggering to shove

the goal posts around the field when someone is desperately struggling to defend the indefensible.

I thought that tactic, due to its abject failure, had disappeared from the bag of 'how to avoid defending what you cannot defend' memes used back in the old Bush days. I remember we researched this years ago to see what the origin of such lame retorts was. I believe it was traced back to Rovian 'classes' (yes, they actually had classes on this) on how to slam LIEBERALS, as Rush called them.

Left hating Right Wingers however had their heads handed to them so many times, and I am proud to say I joined in that particular fun, that they had to crawl back to their basements to try to recoup some of what was left of their dignity after the trashing they used to receive each time they delivered one of those lame retorts. I always hoped they were spending huge amounts of money on their 'classes' though.

Why are you using Rovian material against Democrats on this board? And old, used up material at that?

Now back to addressing the actual issues which I have ZERO problems doing because it is not hard to defend your position when you are RIGHT.

My principles remain the same as they were when the Bush gang were committing War Crimes on a daily

basis.

My principles dictate that when crimes are committed, the actual Perpetrators are the ones who should be held accountable.

My principles do not include the grotesque practice of USING THE SUFFERING OF INNOCENTS for political purposes and it is a disgrace to see anyone even attempt to use those tragic victims for their own nefarious purposes and in doing so they are complicit in the crimes.

Let me ask you, since you are so noble you care so much about those innocent victims, can you tell us something about them, one of them even, the names of some of the children? What do you intend to do about them other than drop bombs for 90 days, killing untold numbers of MORE of their fellow citizens, most of whom will also be innocent victims?

[michigandem58]

55. Your questions to me are as daft as your position

Of course perpetrators of war crimes should be prosecuted. But you think we shouldn't move to deter any wrongdoing in the world until all of that is done to your satisfaction. If we've committed a wrong, somehow we have no business trying to prevent another - two wrongs are better than one.

The strikes proposed are intended to deter further attacks. It's silly to ask me, you, or anyone else if we know their names - we don't - is that the only way we're entitled to an opinion? As for what is done for Syria down the road, that's another issue. We can advocate for strikes on their behalf in the short term without a road map for the next five years.

Innocents may well be killed by the strikes, sadly. But the intention is saving more lives. But you knew that.

Let me sum it up for you - stop looking for perfect when we are choosing between a bad situation and a somewhat better situation.

[sabrina 1]

56. Lots of people know the names of many of the victims, but they are not in the business of

using them for political purposes. They are there, on the ground, doing far more than our 'humanitarian' bombs, which you freely acknowledge will kill more innocent people, have ever done.

Did you support the 'bombings' in Libya in order to 'protect innocents also'? I wonder why we never see a single word about Libya's 'victims' since the real goal was accomplished. Have you ever bothered to check up on those victims since NATO accomplished its real goal?? I have, and it is tragic.

But I have been observing with little surprise, how little concern, no the total lack of concern for all the 'innocent victims' who were used to get all of these criminal enterprises support.

If you truly did care about the victims, you WOULD know at least a few of their names, who they were, why they became victims, and you would be listening to them and their loved ones rather than dismissing what they are saying. I have, so have millions of other people around the world. I wonder why it is so difficult for the pro-war crowd to even take a minute out of their time promoting these wars, to try to find out about the HUMAN BEINGS they talk about as 'STATISTICS' and then promptly forget AFTER the real goals are accomplished??? Don't think this hasn't been noted, over and over again.

So your logic is 'I don't have time to actually get to know the victims, or ask THEM if they want our WMDS falling on their country.

Your logic, speaking of daft: There was a crime committed, and I believe we should just start shooting up the place without taking the trouble to find out who is responsible, and kill a whole lot of other people. That's your logic. It was the logic for the Iraq War, for Afghanistan, for Libya, and the recipe is the same for the next country to tick off the PNAC list.

Now watch the denial re that particular vile plan which is moving along as planned.

Too bad the world is now familiar with the hypocrisy, the gall of a country that actually DOES TOLERATE 'this kind of thing' when their own war criminals do it, expecting to have any kind of moral authority regarding issues like this ever again.

Stop the nonsense, you'll get your war, because there is no stopping the policies that have been in place for a long, long time, and the opinions of the people, of the World, do not matter one bit, or how many we kill, nor do the victims matter.

And until we Democrats stop going along, as we have, with the same old 'you have nowhere to go' routine, there will be more of theses wars. We have three or four more countries to go still. So we can expect a repeat of this as soon as this one is accomplished.

And this may be the only benefit of all this. Those of you who hate the 'left' so intensely, may finally get your wish. You may find yourselves trying to get your 'leaders' elected all by yourselves, without our help from now on.

And then we can begin the process of repairing the damage, as much as possible, compensating the victims, as they have been asking us to do, prosecuting our OWN WAR CRIMINALS, and staying out of other people's business much of which we create.

We need to get this Party out of the hands of the Third Way. But we really did have to see it all in action before we could begin that process.

[michigandem58]

59. I'm sorry, we really can't debate this

because you have no reasoned position on it.

Your posts consist of tangents about knowing names, claimed war crimes of past, and whatever other knee jerk reactions you try to pass off as a conclusion.

Not once have you weighed the pros and cons in a full and honest way. If you think it will destabilize the region, say so. If you have reason to believe the collateral damage is worse than leaving Assad with a free hand, say so.

Do you understand what the strategy might be?

If you don't want permanent political exile, engage issues in a thoughtful way. As long as your world view consists of boilerplate leftist blather, you won't amount to a pimple on a flea's rear end.

[sabrina 1]

60. Correction, not 'we' can't debate this, YOU can't debate it which is no surprise.

It's very difficult to defend the indefensible.

I never back away from debating anything with anyone as I make sure to be extremely well-informed on a subject before choosing to engage in a debate.

I have debated this issue, it never changes, same old excuses, same old apologia, same incapacity to make a cogent argument for what really is impossible to defend, with Bush Supporters and their Third Way, Left-hating allies for over a decade now.

I'm not seeing anything new. Just the same old recycled, baseless arguments we got for Iraq, which turned out to be so spectacularly wrong.

Why are you so angry? You're on a Left Wing, Liberal forum. You should have expected to see Progressive, Liberal views here and you should have expected to find it difficult to debate the Left who are notoriously brilliant, informed and who never have to back down on political issues such as this as they have been proven right over and over again. Try learning from the Left instead of getting angry that you can't debate them. That sure isn't their fault.

Sorry you are unable to defend your position, but as I said already, it is an impossible position to try to defend for any Democrat.

[Scuba]

58. Your premise that we can make things better is flawed. See the last 50 years.

[Doctor_J]

11. Even in that context this one is far-fetched

they should have stuck to the "save the children" pitch. at least that one is fact-based. Trotting out a retread of Condi's "mushroom cloud" hoax is pretty outrageous.

[kentuck]

12. True.

We may need to re-read the Constitution?

[Rex]

13. When did you think that was not a true statement?

Is this third way?

[sheshe2]

15. Well I for one will not put much credence in what Congress does.

"Within our country we have a judicial system for that, and we have a Congress to determine when we kill internationally. Our Founders did not intend for a single person to grab such power."

Has your faith in Congress been restored Manny? The do nothing Congress? Forty repeals on ACA? Issa witch hunts? Jobs? Ah no, they were busy...doing what? Is this the Congress you say holds that power? They are all fools and tools. These are the people that you put your faith in, they are doing their level best to destroy this country because they hate this President with a passion.

August 13, 2013
Congress' Approval Rating Remains Near Historical Lows
Fourteen percent approve and 81% disapprove




http://www.gallup.com/poll/163964/congress-approval-rating-remains-near-historical-lows.aspx

[progressoid]

16. Not just now.

We've been using that excuse to fuck with other nations for a long time.

[MannyGoldstein]

18. I think the drones, Libya, now Syria

Are pretty new. Of course drones themselves are new, but openly patrolling foreign airspace and killing hundreds or thousands at will, even US citizens, is new as of Bush I believe.

[progressoid]

19. True.

We were less brazen about our operations in the past.

[Maedhros]

44. I don't think Bush popped any U.S. citizens, though. [n/t]

[MannyGoldstein]

46. I think you're right. nt

[Maedhros]

48. Obama is the first President to claim the power to execute an American citizen without due process,

far from the field of battle, with no oversight or accountability. Sure he paints these grim pictures of fevered madmen "actively engaged in hostilities against Americans", but with respect to Anwar al-Awlaki this seems hard to believe since we are not at war in Yemen and there are no Americans there to be engaged in hostilities with. They killed al-Awlaki because they didn't want him giving incendiary sermons. (And they want to forget about Brandenburg v. Ohio).

It's even more ludicrous when he trots out his thin rationalizations for al-Awlaki's sixteen year old son.

[Hydra]

23. You know what scares me about this?

We're setting a worldwide precedent. Russia and China will be happy to start doing this sort of thing once they get the right footing.

Too big to fight = too big to jail.

[Bolo Boffin]

24. "a single American deciding whether to kill people" - Please stop telling fucking lies about Obama.

Please.

[MannyGoldstein]

25. Obama hasn't claimed he can execute anyone, anywhere, without any judicial oversight?

Do you need corroboration?

[Bolo Boffin]

30. No, he has not. Please stop telling fucking lies about the President.

Please.

[MannyGoldstein]

31. Perhaps take it up with the NY Times

Send 'em an email telling them they're fucking lying.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

[Bolo Boffin]

32. I'm taking it up with you, the one telling fucking lies about the President here.

Please stop.

ETA: There is nothing in that link that supports the fucking lie you continue to tell here about the President. Please stop telling fucking lies about Barack Obama.

[MannyGoldstein]

33. Well, if the NY Times reports it, I'll go with it

Do you hate the truth? Or do you think the NY Times is lying?

[Bolo Boffin]

34. The NY Times has reported no such thing. Please stop telling fucking lies about Obama.

Please.

[MannyGoldstein]

35. Then one of us has a reading impairment. nt

[MannyGoldstein]

38. Maybe this NY Times editorial will be easier to read?

http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/president-obamas-kill-list/?ref=world

Do you believe that Obama does not have a secret kill list that includes US citizens, which he refuses to allow the judiciary to review?

[MannyGoldstein]

40. One of us is a nitwit

Good night.

[Bolo Boffin]

42. No, that is not true. One of us keeps telling fucking lies about the President

and one of us is fucking tired of the fucking lies. But neither of us are nitwits. One of us would like to have actual debates and discussions about these important issues, but actual debates and discussions cannot be had when the other one of us keeps telling fucking lies about the President.

Please stop telling fucking lies about the President. Please.

[MannyGoldstein]

45. Maybe if I actually copy some paragraphs from my links?

From http://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/president-obamas-kill-list/?ref=world

"That’s precisely the problem: The tether is too short. If Mr. Obama wants to authorize every drone strike, fine—but even the president requires oversight (remember checks and balances?) which he won’t allow. The administration refuses to accept judicial review (from a FISA-style court, say) prior to a strike directed at an American citizen, and won’t deign to release the legal documents written to justify the targeted killing program. The Times and the ACLU have both sued to force disclosure of these documents. No luck yet.

Apologists for the president’s “just trust me” approach to targeted killings emphasize that the program is highly successful and claim that the drone strikes are extraordinarily precise. John Brennan, the president’s counter-terrorism adviser, said in a recent speech that not a single non-combatant had been killed in a year of drone strikes in Afghanistan and Pakistan. And today’s Times article quoted a senior administration official who said that civilian deaths were in the “single digits.”

But it turns out that even this hey-it’s-better-than-carpet-bombing justification is rather flimsy. The Times article says “Mr. Obama embraced a disputed method for counting civilian casualties …It in effect counts all military-age males in a strike zone as combatants, according to sevral administration officials, unless there is explicit intelligence posthumously proving them innocent.”

The logic, such as it is, is that people who hang around places where Qaeda operatives hang around must be up to no good. That’s the sort of approach that led to the false imprisonment of thousands of Iraqis, including the ones tortured at Abu Ghraib. Mr. Obama used to denounce that kind of thinking."

Does that spell out the extrajudicial secret kill lists for you?

[Maedhros]

47. Here are some things for you to read:

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2013/05/22/obama-admits-4-us-citizens-killed-by-drones-doesnt-explain-circumstances-around-those-not-targeted/

http://www.policymic.com/articles/28696/eric-holder-tells-rand-paul-that-obama-can-kill-americans-on-u-s-soil

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/barackobama/9913615/Barack-Obama-has-authority-to-use-drone-strikes-to-kill-Americans-on-US-soil.html

http://www.motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2011/09/obama-assassinates-us-citizen

http://antiwar.com/blog/2013/03/05/obama-administration-yes-we-can-kill-americans-on-us-soil/

It sure looks like the president is ordering the deaths of American citizens.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/OTUS/obamas-secret-kill-list-shows-president-final-word/story?id=16449862

When it comes to the "secret kill list"--a regularly updated chart showing the world's most wanted terrorists--President Obama is the "final moral calculation" in the kill or capture debate, according to the third in a series of New York Times articles assessing his record.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

It was not a theoretical question: Mr. Obama has placed himself at the helm of a top secret “nominations” process to designate terrorists for kill or capture, of which the capture part has become largely theoretical. He had vowed to align the fight against Al Qaeda with American values; the chart, introducing people whose deaths he might soon be asked to order, underscored just what a moral and legal conundrum this could be.

That sure has the look of "a single American deciding to kill people."

So lay off the petulant accusations.

[morningfog]

49. FUcking lies!

You know what isn't fucking lies. Obama has assassinated US citizens and has violated nation's sovereignty with acts of war. If and when he bombs Syria on his own, it will be a war crime. Own that.

[last1standing]

26. Same as it ever was.

Just different sheep bleating to the sound of the drums.

[jsr]

28. No shit

[paulrandfu]

29. Republicons pose a clear and present danger

More then Syria could ever be. Republicons, through their fascist legislation, have murdered hundreds of thousands of Americans over the years. Me thinks we should deal with them first.

[Phlem]

37. I noticed that

with respect to immediate remarks made by Obama after the Syria thing. He sounded like a strike was going to happen with no regard to debate. After a bunch of bitching from the left, all of a sudden he was a genius for asking votes on the issue.

WTF!?

The shit people eat up. Yea O's a fricken genius.



So tired....

-p

[Spitfire of ATJ]

41. Actually, it's if a regime refuses to honor a corporate contract.

[DeSwiss]

43. Apparently, yes.

Because as you know quite well, the Nixon Doctrine says: ''When the President does it, it ain't illegal.''

- And any doctrine with the word ''ain't'' in it must be true.....

K&R

[liberal N proud]

52. And with that, we can make anything a national security interest

Isn't power a great thing?

[Agony]

53. nothing new... thats for sure. "get used to it world, we're not going to put up with nonsense"

[felix_numinous]

57. Which would become more obvious

if an actual crazy person got into office. Oops that already happened in 2000, and we haven't been able to stop the mission creep since then.

We don't need a revolution, we need a restoration, a do-over from around the time we decided to become a Super Power.
Because Marvel comics is fiction.

Which is where I always feel, when the warmongering starts--like life suddenly morphed into a bad dystopian cartoon.
And this is it--reality shifts into a distortion, who said it best? The first casualty of war is the truth.